My understanding is that the word for Baptism in the Greek would refer to Immersion, and this is why Baptists would tend to see it as believers baptism.
Last edited:
Another baptism debate
- Thread starter josiahrussell
- Start date
- Status
jomawh
Puritan Board Freshman
Curiously within the Westminster Assembly the vote was evenly split (24-24) between immersion-only and allowing other modes such as sprinkling. It was left up to the chairman, who sided with the other-modes position, to cast the deciding vote.
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
Not sure what "int e Greek" is, but in NT Greek, whether "baptism" means immersion has been the fodder for much debate. Perhaps the most well-known example is Mark 7:4, which would have to then imply that the Pharisees "religiously" immersed themselves - and their tables (or couches) before eating.
jomawh
Puritan Board Freshman
Given that both Calvin and Luther admitted that baptizō means "to immerse," with the latter even admitting that immersion was the practice of the ancient church, strengthens the immersion case.
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
My point was that - on a forum consisting of both Baptists and Presbyterians - it is wise to acknowledge that this is by no means a settled issue. I mean, Presbyterians don't say, "Well, I know the Bible says that I should immerse you (and your children), but..."
jomawh
Puritan Board Freshman
It's not a settled issue no, but discussing our differences cordially and being forthright about them is why we're here, isn't it?
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
It's not a settled issue no, but discussing our differences cordially and being forthright about them is why we're here, isn't it?
That, and the free donuts.
Would it have been possible for Moses or any OT believer to renounce his faith after he had truly believed and repented?
jomawh
Puritan Board Freshman
They were saved by the blood of Christ alone in the expectation of the fulfillment of the promise. They were thus in the Covenant of Grace, yet uninaugurated though still effectual for all regenerate, believing saints throughout time. This is why they were kept in what the New Testament calls Abraham's bosom- even in death they still had to wait for the covenantal transaction to take place upon the cross. By the reckoning of the Baptist formulation of Covenant theology the Abrahamic, Noahic, and Mosaic covenants pointed towards, but were not themselves, the Covenant of Grace. Nevertheless, believing Saints participated in and were included within the purview the Covenant of Grace in spite of their participation in these typological, pointing-forward covenants, though not on account of them. What else would we do with the handful of God-fearers who believed in the promise but who were still outside the bounds of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants?
What the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant brought was a typological foreshadowing in the laws and ordinances which Christ would fulfill in transacting its benefits to His Saints irrespective of their lack of perfect obedience to it (Romans 8). The giving of the Mosaic, in spite of its standard of perfect, unflinching obedience, was in this sense an act of grace for the Saints, but on the other hand an act of greater judgment upon those who refused to see through the law to see its telos, Christ.
That the typological host of Old Testament Israel was baptized into Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2), and not Christ, begs the question: How could one be baptized into Moses and Christ within the same covenant administration, if indeed the substance thereof was the same? How could Paul exhort Jewish Christians to continue to circumcise their children and baptize them, presumably? How would that not be a kind of re-baptism, a reapplication of a sign with the same substance as the former, unless the two signs are indeed as Baptist covenant theology seems them: two different, yet related, signs with different substances and ends?
Still working through my understanding of the 1689 Federalist view, but this is all beginning to make sense to me.
Last edited:
What passage in the old testament foretold a new sacrament immersion?
What passage in the old testament foretold that the anointed one would be immersed?
Would the church of that day not have quoted Isaiah 8:20 expecting some sort of validation for this new sacrament ?
20To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there isno light in them.
What passage in the old testament foretold that the anointed one would be immersed?
Would the church of that day not have quoted Isaiah 8:20 expecting some sort of validation for this new sacrament ?
20To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there isno light in them.
The KJV translators could have brought that use into their translation, as it would fit the Greek meaning into English, but that would go directly against their own theology, so was not done.
I did not know that, and just think how much would have changed if they went with immersion instead.
I understand your point, and have changed my original wording.
Allowing scripture to interpret scripture the only place I can see that baptism is clearly defined is in the book of Hebrews chapter 9 verses 10 through 20 .
10but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
15Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.”21And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.
In verse 10 the word for washings there is baptismos or baptisms. The apostle Paul Describes some of the various old testament baptisms in verses 13, 19 and 21.
Heb 9:13. Numbers 19:17-18
Heb 9:19. Exodus 24:6,8
Heb 9:21 Leviticus 8:19; 16:14
I find verses 19 through 21 very helpful in understanding what baptism really is, in these verses The old testament church had gathered to worship God and to receive the means of grace that was available to them through the old administration of the covenant of grace,the men women and children were sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice there by uniting them to that which the sacrifice represented.
https://www.christianbook.com/the-meaning-mode-of-baptism/jay-adams/9780875520438/pd/552043X
If the Anointed one ( prophet priest and king) had submitted to immersion he would have violated scripture.
In fulfilling all righteousness (matt 3:15) which is obedience to the law, Jesus could not have submitted to a proceeding which was not commanded nor prefigured in The OT scripture.
If anyone has not read this book, they should it's very good.
If the Anointed one ( prophet priest and king) had submitted to immersion he would have violated scripture.
In fulfilling all righteousness (matt 3:15) which is obedience to the law, Jesus could not have submitted to a proceeding which was not commanded nor prefigured in The OT scripture.
If anyone has not read this book, they should it's very good.
Do the Scriptures anyplace say that people can break the new covenant?
jomawh
Puritan Board Freshman
Sorry, not buying it.
On the one hand, if true, the biblical authors chose the worst and most confusing word, which near-contemporaneous writers in Koiné used to describe a ship being "baptized" into the sea during a war, to describe pouring or sprinkling. Why did they not use rhantizō (to sprinkle) or cheō (to pour)? That the Greek church has always understood baptizō to mean "to immerse" should further evidence the plain definition.
Upon what basis do we then allow for immersion in baptism at all?
On the other hand, immersion has precedent within the Mosaic law (Leviticus 14:8-9; 15:13-15, 19-27; 22:4-6; Numbers 19:19). To say that the requirement to bathe does not necessitate full immersion would mean to leave certain parts of the body ritually unclean, and further, John baptized Jesus eis ton Iordanen, "into the Jordan," plainly a statement of immersion.
We have to take the inspired Greek term chosen to be used by the Holy Spirit as to what God meant by the term of Baptism, and to try to use it in another way would not make much sense to me. Again, this to me is not an issue to divide over, but to have an "in house" discussion over between saints.
Scripture is self interpreting.
Try searching secular Greek for the meaning of The word God or justification.
I actually don't want to get roped into another interminable debate over words.
Does βαπτίζω "mean" immerse? No, it has a semantic range.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:alphabetic+letter=*b:entry+group=8:entry=bapti/zw
If one must offer a single word for a "base-sense," that word in English would likely be "whelm." "Whem" and "immerse" are not perfectly synonymous (especially as the latter is almost exclusively taken today in the all/entirely at once sense). βαπτίζω works quite well as a flexible term, fully capable of supporting a range of use, including metaphorical.
As for jangling over questions like: "why not use ῥαντίζω, to avoid confusion?"--as if the question of "mode" was decisive-- http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:alphabetic+letter=*r:entry+group=3:entry=r(anti/zw
best to just turn the issue about, and ask the question the opposite way: "why not use ἐγκαταδύνω, to avoid confusion?"
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:alphabetic+letter=*e:entry+group=6:entry=e)gkatadu/nw
See how nonsensical it becomes? Each side can throw out a linguistic distraction like its an ace.
OK, now back to whatever you were doing...
Does βαπτίζω "mean" immerse? No, it has a semantic range.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:alphabetic+letter=*b:entry+group=8:entry=bapti/zw
If one must offer a single word for a "base-sense," that word in English would likely be "whelm." "Whem" and "immerse" are not perfectly synonymous (especially as the latter is almost exclusively taken today in the all/entirely at once sense). βαπτίζω works quite well as a flexible term, fully capable of supporting a range of use, including metaphorical.
As for jangling over questions like: "why not use ῥαντίζω, to avoid confusion?"--as if the question of "mode" was decisive-- http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:alphabetic+letter=*r:entry+group=3:entry=r(anti/zw
best to just turn the issue about, and ask the question the opposite way: "why not use ἐγκαταδύνω, to avoid confusion?"
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:alphabetic+letter=*e:entry+group=6:entry=e)gkatadu/nw
See how nonsensical it becomes? Each side can throw out a linguistic distraction like its an ace.
OK, now back to whatever you were doing...
jomawh
Puritan Board Freshman
I again realize that I am writing to an elder in Christ's church. If you find that I am disrespecting his due authority and position, please PM me. It is not my intention to be aggressive or combative.
Granted there is a semantic range, but why here would we abandon the principle that we don't define a word on the basis of its metaphorical usage? To...is expand the right word...the definition of baptizō to include sprinkling and pouring, which even the first-linked lexicon does not include, does not seem to me to do justice to its meaning. That Israel was baptized into Moses "in the cloud and the sea," though they weren't literally submersed, seems to be an appropriate(?) metaphorical usage of baptizō. "To stand" can have metaphorical connotations of defiance, but that's seems to be a different category than saying that "to stand" could also mean "to lean" or "to pose." Both are possible, sure, but we have different verbs for a reason.
With regard to the standard historical-grammatical hermeneutic we also have to ask ourselves the question: "Would anyone in the first century audience have understood baptizō to mean sprinkle or pour?" Given the examples the lexicon you provided I would even question whether or not baptizō used with a preposition means anything other than "to immerse," or "to welm-" it'd be an interesting study. I admit that the testimony of the early church is perhaps ambiguous (given certain mosaics which clearly demonstrate pouring, others demonstrating an immersion), and the didache does not help (using baptizō without any leanings either way), while the ancient baptistries found in Roman catacombs were surely made deep enough for full immersion.
Granted there is a semantic range, but why here would we abandon the principle that we don't define a word on the basis of its metaphorical usage? To...is expand the right word...the definition of baptizō to include sprinkling and pouring, which even the first-linked lexicon does not include, does not seem to me to do justice to its meaning. That Israel was baptized into Moses "in the cloud and the sea," though they weren't literally submersed, seems to be an appropriate(?) metaphorical usage of baptizō. "To stand" can have metaphorical connotations of defiance, but that's seems to be a different category than saying that "to stand" could also mean "to lean" or "to pose." Both are possible, sure, but we have different verbs for a reason.
With regard to the standard historical-grammatical hermeneutic we also have to ask ourselves the question: "Would anyone in the first century audience have understood baptizō to mean sprinkle or pour?" Given the examples the lexicon you provided I would even question whether or not baptizō used with a preposition means anything other than "to immerse," or "to welm-" it'd be an interesting study. I admit that the testimony of the early church is perhaps ambiguous (given certain mosaics which clearly demonstrate pouring, others demonstrating an immersion), and the didache does not help (using baptizō without any leanings either way), while the ancient baptistries found in Roman catacombs were surely made deep enough for full immersion.
Mason,
You don't have to walk on eggshells around me. I don't want you apologizing for or soft-pedaling your views. If you get up to defend them, you should hold them firmly and with conviction that allows you to represent them accurately and boldly, with grace. Those who are too bold, they should not enter the lists, in my opinion.
I'm reluctant to get in the weeds about the issue. I'm aware of some resentment I have created by some bullheaded intimidation the past (not that I meant ill by it). I'm serious when I say how little I desire to see someone "flip" on baptism. Now, sometimes, I see arguments that are among the worst (for any position) set forth like show-stoppers; and I feel the need to say to "my guy" or "the other guy": please do better than that. Impressionable people are watching.
I don't define the term "baptism" by the mode. I don't feel any duty to do so, certainly none imposed by the term itself. Why? because the term is applied to many situations where the mode is either irrelevant, or as evident from the text (of Scripture or Gk. lit.) is something other than a whelming. If we had such an obligation to terms, then a word like "horses" would be inapplicable to situations where horses were utterly foreign (as when short for horsepower, and used in a multitude of senses).
Your choice of "metaphorical" text, 1Cor.10:2, seems to follow an interpretation that imagines a submerging in the Red Sea; which I think is actually alien to Paul's intent (Israel isn't remotely baptized into the sea, but into Moses; and the water of cloud and sea are instrumental in the first word, Ps.77:17-20, and locative in the second). As far as my interpretation is concerned, there is zero sensory aspect introduced there about Israel being "below the waterline." That's not something that the word "baptized" brings to my mind.
I'm not saying that to change your mind; but to prove to you that people who take the text seriously aren't always obligated by what first may strike you as something obvious. You may feel something similar about Rom.6:4, that there's a "burial" that's even less metaphorical being illustrated by going under, and a "resurrection" implied by coming up. To me, it's still metaphorical, and the mode is largely immaterial.
And my reason (again, I'm not seeking to impose it) is: I see no reason to privilege the "burial" metaphor, over the "drinking glass" metaphor, 1Cor.12:13; or the "suit of clothes" metaphor, Gal.3:27. In neither of the latter metaphors do I find but the loosest connection to a literal whelming. These are illustrative cases of the theology of baptism, and they belong--as far as I'm concerned--to the same category as Rom.6:3-4, and 1Cor.10:2. Yet, though I do not share it, I can appreciate your interpretation and engagement with all those texts, in a way that is consistent and satisfying to your convictions.
Is there any reason I might connect "pouring" to baptism? I don't know... maybe Act.2? Act.10:44-48? I find "sprinkling" and baptism connected explicitly in Heb.9:10, followed thereafter less explicitly at 10:22. I'm not asking Liddel & Scott, or the BADG, to prescribe for me a priori the limit to which baptizo can be stretched.
I do not wish to delve into a discussion of early church architecture, illustrations, practices, inscriptions; or the relation of baptism to Jewish practices or to Gnostic mysteries; or anything similar while on this thread. All these subjects may be examined and judged consistent with whatever prior convictions one may hold. If summoned to this discussion, my aim is to keep to the text of Scripture. And I am sure you can appreciate that! Amen.
You don't have to walk on eggshells around me. I don't want you apologizing for or soft-pedaling your views. If you get up to defend them, you should hold them firmly and with conviction that allows you to represent them accurately and boldly, with grace. Those who are too bold, they should not enter the lists, in my opinion.
I'm reluctant to get in the weeds about the issue. I'm aware of some resentment I have created by some bullheaded intimidation the past (not that I meant ill by it). I'm serious when I say how little I desire to see someone "flip" on baptism. Now, sometimes, I see arguments that are among the worst (for any position) set forth like show-stoppers; and I feel the need to say to "my guy" or "the other guy": please do better than that. Impressionable people are watching.
I don't define the term "baptism" by the mode. I don't feel any duty to do so, certainly none imposed by the term itself. Why? because the term is applied to many situations where the mode is either irrelevant, or as evident from the text (of Scripture or Gk. lit.) is something other than a whelming. If we had such an obligation to terms, then a word like "horses" would be inapplicable to situations where horses were utterly foreign (as when short for horsepower, and used in a multitude of senses).
Your choice of "metaphorical" text, 1Cor.10:2, seems to follow an interpretation that imagines a submerging in the Red Sea; which I think is actually alien to Paul's intent (Israel isn't remotely baptized into the sea, but into Moses; and the water of cloud and sea are instrumental in the first word, Ps.77:17-20, and locative in the second). As far as my interpretation is concerned, there is zero sensory aspect introduced there about Israel being "below the waterline." That's not something that the word "baptized" brings to my mind.
I'm not saying that to change your mind; but to prove to you that people who take the text seriously aren't always obligated by what first may strike you as something obvious. You may feel something similar about Rom.6:4, that there's a "burial" that's even less metaphorical being illustrated by going under, and a "resurrection" implied by coming up. To me, it's still metaphorical, and the mode is largely immaterial.
And my reason (again, I'm not seeking to impose it) is: I see no reason to privilege the "burial" metaphor, over the "drinking glass" metaphor, 1Cor.12:13; or the "suit of clothes" metaphor, Gal.3:27. In neither of the latter metaphors do I find but the loosest connection to a literal whelming. These are illustrative cases of the theology of baptism, and they belong--as far as I'm concerned--to the same category as Rom.6:3-4, and 1Cor.10:2. Yet, though I do not share it, I can appreciate your interpretation and engagement with all those texts, in a way that is consistent and satisfying to your convictions.
Is there any reason I might connect "pouring" to baptism? I don't know... maybe Act.2? Act.10:44-48? I find "sprinkling" and baptism connected explicitly in Heb.9:10, followed thereafter less explicitly at 10:22. I'm not asking Liddel & Scott, or the BADG, to prescribe for me a priori the limit to which baptizo can be stretched.
I do not wish to delve into a discussion of early church architecture, illustrations, practices, inscriptions; or the relation of baptism to Jewish practices or to Gnostic mysteries; or anything similar while on this thread. All these subjects may be examined and judged consistent with whatever prior convictions one may hold. If summoned to this discussion, my aim is to keep to the text of Scripture. And I am sure you can appreciate that! Amen.
- Status
